Chapel Mormons Vs. Internet Mormons

[gmormon]

... I can say that I am 99.99999% sure that Jesus is not going to ask you at the pearly gates if you hold to a local or global flood theory.

I don't know Rommelator you are showing a little doubt here. 100 - 99.9999 = 0.00001

[Scottie]

I think many of you are missing the bigger picture here.

Sure, any single one of these items by themselves is insignificant. It's when you start to add up all the problematic questions that it soon starts to challenge the very prophetic nature of Joseph Smith. If JS wasn't a prophet, the church is not true. I think this is a pretty big deal, and worthy of study! If you have devoted your life to a false religion, don't you think you'd like to know so you could find the right one?

[Daniel Peterson]

I interview lots and lots of people for temple recommends. I ask questions about honesty and morality and faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I ask about testimonies of the atonement of Christ and of the restoration of the Gospel. I ask about treatment of family members, adherence to the Word of Wisdom, support for General Authorities and local Church leaders, etc.

But I never ask about the mode of Jesus' conception or the location of Zarahemla or whether the Father is progressing in knowledge or anything of that sort.

[Mudcat]

I interview lots and lots of people for temple recommends. I ask questions about honesty and morality and faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I ask about testimonies of the atonement of Christ and of the restoration of the Gospel. I ask about treatment of family members, adherence to the Word of Wisdom, support for General Authorities and local Church leaders, etc.

But I never ask about the mode of Jesus' conception or the location of Zarahemla or whether the Father is progressing in knowledge or anything of that sort.

My guess would be that if you find their answers satisfactory, the rest (italics mine) would be a moot point.

Much like asking a bunch of kids wearing BYU t-shirts at the BYU/Utes game, "What team are you for?"

[Lamanite]

I think many of you are missing the bigger picture here.

Sure, any single one of these items by themselves is insignificant. It's when you start to add up all the problematic questions that it soon starts to challenge the very prophetic nature of Joseph Smith. If JS wasn't a prophet, the church is not true. I think this is a pretty big deal, and worthy of study! If you have devoted your life to a false religion, don't you think you'd like to know so you could find the right one?

But the questions you're referring to are not part of the "revealed" religion.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

On the flip side, I'm not sure it's any more right for the church to categorize members into active, semi-active and inactive categories. There are all colors of the rainbow of activity level in the church.

Why do it? It helps to know the audience you are talking to. You would speak differently to an active member than an inactive member, right?

Same for me. I talk to chapel Mormons completely different than I would an internet Mormon. It does sort of help to categorize people in my mind, just as I suspect it helps you to categorize someone as inactive.

They are both distinctions but the difference is one is empirical. If someone is not attending Church they are less active. No one can truly test which kind of Mormon someone is. I'm willing to accept that people have to be labelled but they usually do it themselves. People declare that they are a feminist, an ultra-Orthodox Jew, a communist, etc. No LDS I know has decided whether they are an internet or chapel Mormon and wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two if you explained it. It's too fuzzy a distinction to be useful. I've been told that I'm both by different people.

[Lamanite]

Shades dropped by my blog to answer some questions.

Link is in my sig

Big UP!

Lamanite

[HiJolly]

Shades dropped by my blog to answer some questions.

Link is in my sig

Big UP!

Lamanite

Nice blog entry, Lamanite!! I tried to post a comment but it wouldn't let me, without registering. PBBSSSTHHTHS!

I think Dr. Shades is going too far when he characterizes the apologists as denying that there are LDS that believe the earth was created in 6,000 years. Any of them who go to Church (which I hope is most) know that there are quite a few such members.

Maybe for apologetic purposes it didn't benefit the LDS 'internet' members to admit the views of the 'chapel' members, or perhaps there was a distortion there somewhere...

HiJolly

[Scottie]

They are both distinctions but the difference is one is empirical. If someone is not attending Church they are less active. No one can truly test which kind of Mormon someone is. I'm willing to accept that people have to be labelled but they usually do it themselves. People declare that they are a feminist, an ultra-Orthodox Jew, a communist, etc. No LDS I know has decided whether they are an internet or chapel Mormon and wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two if you explained it. It's too fuzzy a distinction to be useful. I've been told that I'm both by different people.

Is church attendance the ONLY measuring guide by which LDS determine the activity rate in Mormonism? I mean, take an exceptional member, following almost all the commandments, yet he doesn't go to church on Sunday. He is labeled "inactive". Yet, the scumbag, wife cheating, lying, porn addict, closet alcoholic attends Sunday meetings regularly and he is labeled "active".

I don't think your assessment is correct that the LDS labels aren't fuzzy.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think Dr. Shades is going too far when he characterizes the apologists as denying that there are LDS that believe the earth was created in 6,000 years.

He's been pretty consistent in making such ludicrous claims, which is one of the reasons I dismiss his chapel vs. internet dichotomy as frivolous.

Again, I point to Richard Poll's much earlier "Liahona" versus "Iron Rod" distinction as a much more mature and much less silly attempt at characterizing the obvious range of believing LDS attitudes.

[selek]

-- I've also never caught a glimpse of a snipe --

Not quite correct Herr Doktor Professor Peterson.

We shook hands at last year's FAIR conference.

I was a Navy propusion engineer- a "hole snipe".

Your remarks about the mythology (delusion) Shades is trying to sell, however, are right on target, as usual.

Is it just me, or is Shades' beastiary more diverse and filled with more mythical beasts than Gygax's, and creatures more fantastical than Lovecraft's?

I know that most of the poster's at the Shady Rest could pass for residents of Lovecraft's Mountains of Madness.

[Ipso Facto]

Scottie-

You see, I WAS a chapel Mormon until I turned into an Internet Mormon... after which I turned into an apostate Mormon. Nearly everything on Shades list described me to a T when I was a chapel Mormon.

• 
  
• I never knew JS had multiple wives,
  
• I thought polygamy was only because so many men had died crossing the plains,
  
• I believed there were extensive South American artifacts that PROVED the BoM true,
  
• I never EVER questioned the words of the prophets,
  
• I thought the Earth was 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were here because God made this world out of many older worlds, etc.
  
  

Incredible!

And yet you have inadvertantly proven, once again, that the glory of God is intelligence, and the surest route to apostasy is to wallow in ignorance about those things that really matter most.

I grew up in the church. I went to seminary. I served a mission. I have served in various leadership callings at the ward and stake levels throughout my life. In every way I can imagine, I am an entirely orthodox believer in the restored gospel. And yet:

• 
  
• I knew, from a very young age, that Joseph Smith had multiple wives,
  
• I was taught that plural marriage was a principle of the gospel, not a practical response to a passing exigency,
  
• I have enthusiastically followed the latest findings in ancient Mesoamerican studies, and my faith is frequently strengthened by discoveries that seem to corroborate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I have never heard it taught, nor do I believe myself, that there is anything that â??PROVESâ? the BoM true,
  
• I revere and cherish the living prophets, but I base all my choices in life on my own relationship with God, and my ability to communicate directly with Him,
  
• To the best of my recollection, neither the age of the earth, nor the origin of dinosaurs has EVER been a topic of discussion in any church setting.
  
  

If people reach adulthood believing the things you list above, then I am glad they apostatize. We donâ??t need those kinds of ignorant people impeding the forward progress of the Church. People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

[ttribe]

Incredible!

And yet you have inadvertantly proven, once again, that the glory of God is intelligence, and the surest route to apostasy is to wallow in ignorance about those things that really matter most.

I grew up in the church. I went to seminary. I served a mission. I have served in various leadership callings at the ward and stake levels throughout my life. In every way I can imagine, I am an entirely orthodox believer in the restored gospel. And yet:

• 
  
• I knew, from a very young age, that Joseph Smith had multiple wives,
  
• I was taught that plural marriage was a principle of the gospel, not a practical response to a passing exigency,
  
• I have enthusiastically followed the latest findings in ancient Mesoamerican studies, and my faith is frequently strengthened by discoveries that seem to corroborate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I have never heard it taught, nor do I believe myself, that there is anything that “PROVES” the BoM true,
  
• I revere and cherish the living prophets, but I base all my choices in life on my own relationship with God, and my ability to communicate directly with Him,
  
• To the best of my recollection, neither the age of the earth, nor the origin of dinosaurs has EVER been a topic of discussion in any church setting.
  
  

If people reach adulthood believing the things you list above, then I am glad they apostatize. We don’t need those kinds of ignorant people impeding the forward progress of the Church. People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

My experience is very similar to yours.

Edited to add: I should have said before - not to happy with the "glad they apostatize" language...geesh, this whole thing blew up when I was at lunch.

[Lise]

We human being like labels: they are so much easier than actually having to get to know one another. We elect pretty politicians; we date pretty people (and then are puzzled that we can't connect with anyone); we call our kids ADD so we can medicate them instead of working with them one on one.

My VT companion and I teach three sisters who would be labeled "inactive". They are completely different people, with completely different understandings. We are doing our best to relate to them where they are at. By the way, they all would be "chapel mormons", except the part about actually going to church.

I grew up in Utah county, and the internet didn't show up until I was through with BYU and a mission and was married. I still managed to have learning experiences similar to ttribe and ipso facto. I seem to recall learning a few of those "internet" type things from some of my BYU professors ... ooo....gasp....could it be?

[HiJolly]

To the best of my recollection, neither the age of the earth, nor the origin of dinosaurs has EVER been a topic of discussion in any church setting.

Luck you. I've heard it many times, sad to say.

If people reach adulthood believing the things you list above, then I am glad they apostatize. We donâ??t need those kinds of ignorant people impeding the forward progress of the Church. People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

That's awfully callous. Remember we all have issues. This one that you are castigating, is just one of many varieties. I have issues, too ---- should I apostatize?

HiJolly

[thesometimesaint]

HiJolly:

Apostatize? Never. But I am frequently being called a Heretic.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly:

Apostatize? Never. But I am frequently being called a Heretic.

I am *so* a heretic. Good thing the LDS don't take action on heresy (unless we teach it).

HiJolly

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is irony in their holding up Rod Meldrum as a great example of Chapel Mormons. Why? He has released a DVD, he has a pretty good looking website, and he also has a blog. People hear about his stuff through e-mail. All those accidental Internet Mormons need to know their role and get back to the pews.

[Scottie]

Incredible!

And yet you have inadvertantly proven, once again, that the glory of God is intelligence, and the surest route to apostasy is to wallow in ignorance about those things that really matter most.

I grew up in the church. I went to seminary. I served a mission. I have served in various leadership callings at the ward and stake levels throughout my life. In every way I can imagine, I am an entirely orthodox believer in the restored gospel. And yet:

• 
  
• I knew, from a very young age, that Joseph Smith had multiple wives,
  
• I was taught that plural marriage was a principle of the gospel, not a practical response to a passing exigency,
  
• I have enthusiastically followed the latest findings in ancient Mesoamerican studies, and my faith is frequently strengthened by discoveries that seem to corroborate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I have never heard it taught, nor do I believe myself, that there is anything that â??PROVESâ? the BoM true,
  
• I revere and cherish the living prophets, but I base all my choices in life on my own relationship with God, and my ability to communicate directly with Him,
  
• To the best of my recollection, neither the age of the earth, nor the origin of dinosaurs has EVER been a topic of discussion in any church setting.
  
  

If people reach adulthood believing the things you list above, then I am glad they apostatize. We donâ??t need those kinds of ignorant people impeding the forward progress of the Church. People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

Huh... interesting that you didn't point this vitriol towards Lamanite who admitted his experiences were much the same as mine. But, then again, I guess he is one of you and I am an evil apostate.

The fruits of Mormonism indeed.

[Ipso Facto]

HiJolly-

That's awfully callous. Remember we all have issues. This one that you are castigating, is just one of many varieties. I have issues, too ---- should I apostatize?

I repeat: People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

In fact, I am entirely persuaded that everything else; every other consideration, is subsumed in the consideration I cite above. God has formulated this entire existence with the express purpose of identifying which of His children will embrace the gift, as well as the concept, of free agency, and use it, in conjunction with faith, to learn to communicate with Him even when He cannot be seen.

So, again: People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

[Scottie]

So, again: People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

And, you know what? That suits me JUST fine. I want no part of your vindictive, cruel, petty and unjust God.

[Ipso Facto]

There is irony in their holding up Rod Meldrum as a great example of Chapel Mormons. Why? He has released a DVD, he has a pretty good looking website, and he also has a blog. People hear about his stuff through e-mail. All those accidental Internet Mormons need to know their role and get back to the pews.

In my part of the kingdom, we call people like Meldrum "hobby horse Saints" -- people who latch onto some particular (and usually minimally important) gospel-related issue, and who make it the primary focus of their religion. We make sure to never place such people in positions of authority or where they might have undue influence on the wider community of believers. We don't shun them, we welcome them and we love them. But we are wary of them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If people reach adulthood believing the things you list above, then I am glad they apostatize. We donâ??t need those kinds of ignorant people impeding the forward progress of the Church. People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

Well, I feel pretty passionate about folks taking responsibility to learn, but I can also see why some might, in good faith, feel they were not taught enough, or taught correctly. I hope to encourage such people to learn to take personal responsibility for their education, but I think you are a little too trigger happy in wishing them out of the Church. I've probably entertained similar feelings (the 'good riddance' sort of thing) but it's probably not very good.

The fruits of Mormonism indeed.

It seems you overlooked where other mormons disagreed with ipso on certain things. "Fruits of Mormonism indeed?" Come on, scottie.

[Scottie]

In my part of the kingdom, we call people like Meldrum "hobby horse Saints" -- people who latch onto some particular (and usually minimally important) gospel-related issue, and who make it the primary focus of their religion. We make sure to never place such people in positions of authority or where they might have undue influence on the wider community of believers. We don't shun them, we welcome them and we love them. But we are wary of them.

Then what good is personal revelation and the teachings of Joseph Smith? You have just stated that they all amount to exactly ZERO.

It seems you overlooked where other mormons disagreed with ipso on certain things. "Fruits of Mormonism indeed?" Come on, scottie.

Sorry, I have a hard time with the Ipso Facto types on this board. You're right. I reacted badly and I take it back.

[HiJolly]

I repeat: People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

In fact, I am entirely persuaded that everything else; every other consideration, is subsumed in the consideration I cite above. God has formulated this entire existence with the express purpose of identifying which of His children will embrace the gift, as well as the concept, of free agency, and use it, in conjunction with faith, to learn to communicate with Him even when He cannot be seen.

So, again: People who refuse to exercise their agency, and who prove either unwilling or unable to communicate with God, are not fit for His kingdom.

I thank God you ain't the judge. You probably need to rethink this whole mindset, Ipso. Even if you're right, you ain't the one to make the call.

HiJolly